Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I would agree with targeting Mountainbike.com or  www.Mountainbike.com

There is also the chance that an external website is linking to you  incorrectly in which case you you you could contact them and ask them to change it. As Moosa suggested a 301 redirect would be the simplest solution.

Have you tried the telephone number listed in Whois?

Vicente, Francisco   fco.vicente.oc@gmail.com
      NA
      20 de Noviembre
      Mexico, Mexico 12365
      Mexico
      +52.55516489

Have a look at this article from matt Cutts

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-many-links-per-page/

The original reason for the 100 link recommendation was due to technical limitations but this is no longer the case, 100 is still a general rule of thumb though. There are certainly times when you need to have more than 100 links, look at Google Plus for instance where the do what you describe above and load further content as the user scrolls down.

Keep in mind though that the amount of value each link can pass on depends on the total number of links on your page so you still wouldn't want to go crazy and link to every page on your website from each page. You mention that all links will not be included in the source code though so you shouldn't have the problem of over diluting the link value. Just make sure that all the links that appear when scrolling are included in a sitemap so they can be crawled.

No problem Andrew.

It depends where in the basket area they are. Keep in mind that the search engines won't submit forms or get into any secure areas so those pages would not be worth changing.

Hi Andrew,

Are you referring to the rel=canonical under the notices section? If so then this is not a problem, it's just showing that there are canonical tags implemented for these pages. You don't need to change anything.

No you shouldn't have to if you are building links naturally. What was your strategy for acquiring 200 links per day?

You don't, your IP address may be recorded by the site you have submitted the link to but not by Google.

However, if you are using proxies then you are probably doing something questionable in the first place and there is a chance you will get into trouble anyway. Especially if you are creating 200 links per day, they will notice this as it wouldn't look natural. It sounds like you may need to focus on a more natural link building strategy if you want your site to stay in the SERPS long term.

I would agree with Aran, show all your content first then hide it in the page load event. I wouldn't actually comment out the content, I would rather use "display:none" on the container div. Showing and hiding content sections with AJAX is very common these days so it shouldn't be a problem, provided it's done correctly.

As long as you keep it up to date there should only be advantages. I use a free program called GsiteCrawler which runs once a week (automated with task scheduler) so it causes me zero maintenance time and I always have an up to date list of URL's for the search engines.

They are probably referring to the office application macros which are scripts that run inside word documents, excel spreadsheet etc. If this is the case then the language you would need to learn is VBA, there are tons of tutorials online you can search for.

As goodlegaladvice suggested, this is probably for creating reports and analytical data etc. If this is the most important thing that they are doing then I would ask for a more detailed explanation of their work!

Agreed 100%, don't nofollow internal links, let your PR flow normally.

In the blog post that Highland mentions it says that the latest index consists mostly of crawls done in May, so any linkbuilding done after that won't be showing yet.

What about using this Irving? Have you tried it before?

The problem with Google is that it's difficult to know whether it is a page level penalty or an anchor text filter that you are triggering from the exact match anchor text abuse. You could try creating a new page for those keywords but there is the chance that they still stop any page from ranking well for that term because of the anchor text (this has happened to me before). Let's hope Google follows Bings lead and comes up with a link removal tool!

Worth a try though.

It's just a notice telling you that a canonical tag _has _been implemented, it's not an error or warning.

Hi,

It would depend on the authority of the existing site, the more authoritative and important the site is perceived to be the quicker Google would crawl your new pages and update it's index. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. You could check your Webmaster Tools to get an idea of the average crawl rate for your site.

The problem is that you lose all previous authority to your existing URL's as any inbound links that arrive at a 404 do not pass link value into your site. You would also have a negative customer experience for anyone following an external link and arriving on a 404 page.

You should do both.

Implement the 301 to catch any link strength coming in from external pages and send it to your correct URL. Always link to your root URL in your internal navigation as linking to index.html and then relying on the 301 to redirect to the correct URL will leak a small amount of link juice every time.

HI,

If you can provide your URL then I can check the redirects for you, or you can try the 3 url's using this tool

http://www.internetofficer.com/seo-tool/redirect-check/

It sounds like the 301 hasn't been implemented correctly as SEOMoz should pick that up.

If you are referring to the latest OpenSiteExplorer index then have a look here:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/july-mozscape-update

Annoyingly the latest index is about half the size of the one before it so this could explain the loss in links. They say if you had a large amount of lower quality links you could see a big difference in total links as many of these are not indexed anymore.